MONIKA HURT Vs. KANWAL KISHORE MANCHANDA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cm.Appl 51459/2018(delay) and RFA(OS) 86/2018 & CMs.APPL 51458/2018 & 4699/2019

(2.) Reading of the application would show that the appellant claims that she was not served with a copy of the summons in the suit and she had no knowledge about the pendency of the suit. It is also averred that she learnt about the same when she received a compilation of papers from her brother Shri Gagan during her visit between 14.09.2018 to 25.10.2018 and thereafter she sought legal advice.

(3.) Mr. Mukerjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has laboured hard to contend that since the appellant has been permanently residing in Australia for more than 25 years and she has visited India only two or three times, she was not aware of the pendency of the suit. The learned counsel has relied upon a decision in the case of Manoharan Vs. Sivarajan & Ors., 2014 4 SCC 163 to contend that it is not length of delay which matters but the explanation for the delay. He further submits that on account of technicalities, a meritorious matter should not be thrown out. The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment in the case of Nand Kishore Vs. State of Punjab, 1995 6 SCC 614, wherein delay of 29 years was condoned.